(July 20, 2017 at 7:08 am)mordant Wrote: I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Your analogy is lacking. Your pink elephant has no purpose/meaning/message, no explanation for its existence, no precedence, and not part of a bigger framework of the supernatural world. Lacking all those, it seem your pink elephant has no causal effect on the natural world and all your objections apply. But since angels or God has all those things, there is an effect on the natural world that can be measured (it might only be information) and so your objections do not apply.

---

(July 20, 2017 at 10:59 am)mordant Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 10:44 am)SteveII Wrote: 1. It is not true that we would have no information about it. It's pretty much the whole purpose of the Bible and other writings to provide information on the supernatural. The supernatural has causal power in the natural world--presto--information available to consider. It does not make any sense that causal power from the supernatural to the natural world changes the supernatural into the natural. It only indicates the effects are natural. 
2. Except the ones that are witnessed, believed and cataloged (see the NT for examples of evidenced supernatural causation).
3. Falsificationism is a theory about what makes a claim scientific, and not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be a scientific claim. Hence not every rationally acceptable claim is or ought to be empirically falsifiable. Your conclusion is absolutely unwarranted.

Please do present to me any substantiation you can offer for the supernatural, and demonstrate clearly how it's distinguishable from just asserting something to be true, or stating that you afford belief to it as true.

Pro tip: ancient writings making assertions or large numbers of people making assertions are no more substantiations or evidence of any kind, than are your assertions. "Witnessed, believed and cataloged" is not substantiation. They are just assertions / claims until they can be evidenced. More assertions, longstanding assertions, assertions by authorities or by claimed holy books, popular assertions, etc., are still just assertions, not evidence.

Millions once asserted that the best treatment for disease was bleeding with leeches. Including medical authorities. Including books that it was written down in. You would have no trouble finding people who witnessed, believed and cataloged healing with leeches. None of that made it true that leeches were effective or appropriate treatments for the vast majority of illnesses, or for the notion of bodily humors being out of balance, etc. being the cause of those diseases.

If people witnessed an event and told someone else or wrote it down, then we do in fact have evidence. 

The problem is with defining words.

Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that the NT is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

Excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

(July 20, 2017 at 4:54 am)ignoramus Wrote: We know from entropy and expansion that the day will come where there are no stars in the night sky. We as human(oids) may or may not be around to witness that.
In the distant future it is an absolute certainly that the universe will eventually be lifeless again.

The bible agrees with you that this universe will be gone someday.

Quote:What of God and heaven then?
Will God cease to exist also (maybe he's a self creating perpetual machine?)

Why would he cease to exist?  He already existed before the creation of the universe.

Quote:Who will worship him then? Not us, no other life around? And if there was other life, then we humans aren't his explicitly special flowers.
So basically God's power is not eternal. Which means he's not omni powerful.

We who are with him will worship him.  Maybe we aren't his only special flowers.  He created angels before us.  He has infinity to create whatever he wants.

(July 20, 2017 at 9:33 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. The universe is not infinite in any way.

You might want to read The Physical Universe by Professor Frank Shu:

Quote:Publications[edit]

Shu is the author of several books, among them Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy (University Science Books, 1982) which has become one of the standard textbooks for undergraduate astrophysics courses all over the world, while the two volumes The Physics of Astrophysics Vol. I: Radiation (University Science Books, 1991) and The Physics of Astrophysics Vol. II: Gas Dynamics (University Science Books, 1992) are classical texts commonplace in astrophysics graduate curricula as well as recommended by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

I have read it several times, and in it, Professor Shu discusses a Universe that is infinite in spatial extent.  But, here's another website for you:

Quote:There is no beyond

Another question is whether our universe is spatially finite or infinite. I think we can never know. It could be finite but of a size that is arbitrarily large. But to many people the idea of a finite universe immediately raises the question of what is beyond. There is no beyond – the universe is everything there is.

https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/news/beyond...e-universe

(July 19, 2017 at 4:11 pm)Jehanne Wrote: #1:  The virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are not caused by anything; they are uncaused.  If so, what do you think it is that causes them, and what causes that to cause them, and so forth.  Again, I am not talking about some quantum event that created our Universe.  What causes these particles to appear?  Please be specific.

What I am wondering, is how do you determine that something is not caused by anything? I may have suspicions about the cause of these particles, but I do not know what causes them. And yet I do believe that nothing provides neither a necessary nor sufficient reason for the effect. "I do not know" does not lead me to the conclusion that their is no cause. The principle of causality is foundational to science and really a basic principle to living in general. I'm not willing to abandon it, and science so easily. Does nothing have limits to what it can cause (how is this determined)?

(July 20, 2017 at 7:08 am)mordant Wrote: I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Although I'll agree that there probably people who say they have seen pink elephants I never ran into any. But there are trillions of people since early mankind who believed or believe in the supernatural to this day. These people were or are not mentally ill and consisted of scientists, doctors, teachers, farmers, laborers and so on. One might determine that because science cannot verify these beliefs that they are not real. Or we can say that there are things that exist that are beyond the realm of science and cannot be verified by scientific methods. If we choose to go with the former, then we are placing ourselves in a little universe with arbitrary boundaries and closing our minds to the existence of anything beyond it, which is what you're doing when you state "there is no supernatural existence".

---

(July 20, 2017 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: Many thousands of people have reported that they were abducted by aliens, taken to their spaceships and subjugated to anal probes; do you accept those accounts?

I don't know if there are thousands. Again, I haven't run into anybody who claims that, but I definitely believe in the possibility that an event like that could happen. I definitely wouldn't say that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.

(July 20, 2017 at 12:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 19, 2017 at 4:11 pm)Jehanne Wrote: #1:  The virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are not caused by anything; they are uncaused.  If so, what do you think it is that causes them, and what causes that to cause them, and so forth.  Again, I am not talking about some quantum event that created our Universe.  What causes these particles to appear?  Please be specific.

What I am wondering, is how do you determine that something is not caused by anything?  I may have suspicions about the cause of these particles, but I do not know what causes them.  And yet I do believe that nothing provides neither a necessary nor sufficient reason for the effect.  "I do not know" does not lead me to the conclusion that their is no cause.    The principle of causality is foundational to science and really a basic principle to living in general.   I'm not willing to abandon it, and science so easily. Does nothing have limits to what it can cause (how is this determined)?

This question is the domain of particle physics.  Virtual particles exist; the Casmir effect was a prediction of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

My point to Steve is that one gets into an infinite regress if one says that something causes the existence of virtual particles.  Rather, virtual particles simply happen because they can happen as described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  They are not caused by anything.

---

(July 20, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 7:08 am)mordant Wrote: I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Although I'll agree that there probably people who say they have seen pink elephants I never ran into any.  But there are trillions of people since early mankind who believed or believe in the supernatural to this day.  These people were or are not mentally ill and consisted of scientists, doctors, teachers, farmers, laborers and so on.  One might determine that because science cannot verify these beliefs that they are not real.  Or we can say that there are things that exist that are beyond the realm of science and cannot be verified by scientific methods.  If we choose to go with the former, then we are placing ourselves in a little universe with arbitrary boundaries and closing our minds to the existence of anything beyond it, which is what you're doing when you state "there is no supernatural existence".

---

(July 20, 2017 at 8:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: Many thousands of people have reported that they were abducted by aliens, taken to their spaceships and subjugated to anal probes; do you accept those accounts?

I don't know if there are thousands.  Again, I haven't run into anybody who claims that, but I definitely believe in the possibility that an event like that could happen.  I definitely wouldn't say that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.

There are at least thousands:

Quote:The Roper Poll[edit]

In 1991, Hopkins, Jacobs and sociologist Dr. Ron Westrum commissioned a Roper Poll in order to determine how many Americans might have experienced the abduction phenomenon. Of nearly 6,000 Americans, 119 answered in a way that Hopkins et al. interpreted as supporting their ET interpretation of the abduction phenomenon. Based on this figure, Hopkins estimated that nearly four million Americans might have been abducted by extraterrestrials. The poll results are available at this external link: Abduction by Aliens or Sleep Paralysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants

Lek Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Ah, I take it that you're a JW then. We'll be completely unconscious of any time spent as a bodiless soul, then? And what about the people who DO go to heaven?

Like I mentioned in my previous post, God can allow us to keep our memories if he wants to.  And I'm definitely not a JW.  Paul wrote "absent from the body, present with Lord."  That indicates we will go to heaven awaiting the final judgement and our placement in new bodies and on the new earth.  My take on it is that there is no time in heaven; so everything is perceived as the present.  Because of this, we (the saved) will all wake up at the same time for the final judgement and our residence on the new earth.  Since the bible doesn't speak to this issue in detail, we can only speculate.

My apologies for guessing wrong on your sect.

So souls won't be able to remember anything without a brain, but God will download the experiences they can't remember when he embodies them again?

(July 20, 2017 at 7:08 am)mordant Wrote: I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Perhaps I am just simple, but if you see a pink elephant, and others confirm it (especially without you saying); and you need a scientist to tell if there is a pink elephant there or not, then I think you are a bit misguided.  Observance is all that is really needed, no special equipment or training is required. If I am told that there is a pink elephant messing up the equipment, and they need me to bring my meters is scopes to confirm it, I am going to think that is crazier than the claim that there is a pink elephant in the machine (and likely not going to take my equipment to verify).  Now if you have a reason to determine, that what everyone is seeing is definitely an elephant, and not something that just looks like, one, then for that you may need to investigate further. 

Now if I am seeing a pink elephant following me around, then I may ask others if they see something.  I may not even tell them what I'm seeing (because my friends would say yes, just to mess with ya).  Now, if I am the only one who see's it, then it is subjective and it's reasonable to ask why.  And a psychological answer very well be the correct conclusion.  If others are seeing the same things that I am, then it is objective.

As to your final point, that only certain people can see.  I think I'm going to ask the question if certain people can see, and describe the same thing, or if a number of people are saying that only they can see it (not seeing what the others are claiming they see but each individual).  This is interesting, but I think that if a number of people can see and give a similar independent description of what is going on, then it is objective and may need to be explained why some people cannot see it.   If it is all individual, then I think it gets more difficult, but again a psychological explanation may be best for it's subjectiveness. It seems that there is another alternative, That people see, but there is no one to substantiate the claim at the time. Or a number of people have similar reports, but they are not witnessed by others, because no one else was there. This doesn't necessarily mean that it was subjective or objective. I may look at the reports, and see if they are describing something similar. I may examine something like where the reports come from (how isolated the phenomenon is) Is there things that give the reports credibility. But often I will hold them in some kind of tension (perhaps leaning to one direction or the other), but not really taking a position either way.

I also do not think that if a number of people corroborate a claim, but that in question is no longer available, that you can call it unsubstatiable.  This is normal in life and history.

(July 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 7:08 am)mordant Wrote: I, an otherwise normal respected person, hereby report seeing a pink elephant following me all day as I go about my business. Can science prove whether or not I am truly accompanied by a pink elephant? If not, are we to assume totally that pink elephants that are visible only to me don't exist? What if a dozen other people report seeing them? What if thousands of otherwise regular people make this claim?

Well the issue isn't whether I'm "mostly" sane or credible yet see pink elephants. The issue is whether I can present any evidence to substantiate it. If I can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. If thousands of people can't, then sorry, it's not substantiated. It doesn't mean I'm crazy or "not regular", it means I am making an unsubstantiated claim. If the elephant is invisible and not detectable in any way, then it's not even substantiatable.

Finally if I claim the elephant isn't part of the natural world then I have two problems. Now it's REALLY unsubstantiatable, inherently. And if I'm claiming as a matter of knowledge that my pink elephant exists, then I'm making an inherently illogical claim. I'm saying the elephant doesn't exist in the only universe I have access to examine, yet, I can't make that claim since I have no access to that imagined realm where I claim the elephant is.

Science would regard thousands of people claiming to be followed by pink elephants that only they can see, as an interesting case of mass hysteria or delusion, and would examine it as such. It would not consider it an interesting case of invisible pink elephants. Simplest explanation, Occam's Razor, etc.

I'm astounded that here in the 21st century I have to explain this to you, frankly.

Perhaps I am just simple, but if you see a pink elephant, and others confirm it (especially without you saying); and you need a scientist to tell if there is a pink elephant there or not, then I think you are a bit misguided.  Observance is all that is really needed, no special equipment or training is required. If I am told that there is a pink elephant messing up the equipment, and they need me to bring my meters is scopes to confirm it, I am going to think that is crazier than the claim that there is a pink elephant in the machine (and likely not going to take my equipment to verify).  Now if you have a reason to determine, that what everyone is seeing is definitely an elephant, and not something that just looks like, one, then for that you may need to investigate further. 

Now if I am seeing a pink elephant following me around, then I may ask others if they see something.  I may not even tell them what I'm seeing (because my friends would say yes, just to mess with ya).  Now, if I am the only one who see's it, then it is subjective and it's reasonable to ask why.  And a psychological answer very well be the correct conclusion.  If others are seeing the same things that I am, then it is objective.

As to your final point, that only certain people can see.  I think I'm going to ask the question if certain people can see, and describe the same thing, or if a number of people are saying that only they can see it (not seeing what the others are claiming they see but each individual).  This is interesting, but I think that if a number of people can see and give a similar independent description of what is going on, then it is objective and may need to be explained why some people cannot see it.   If it is all individual, then I think it gets more difficult, but again a psychological explanation may be best for it's subjectiveness.  It seems that there is another alternative, That people see, but there is no one to substantiate the claim at the time.  Or a number of people have similar reports, but they are not witnessed by others, because no one else was there.  This doesn't necessarily mean that it was subjective or objective.  I may look at the reports, and see if they are describing something similar.  I may examine something like where the reports come from (how isolated the phenomenon is)  Is there things that give the reports credibility.  But often I will hold them in some kind of tension (perhaps leaning to one direction or the other), but not really taking a position either way.

I also do not think that if a number of people corroborate a claim, but that in question is no longer available, that you can call it unsubstatiable.  This is normal in life and history.

"Come one, come all..."  The Acts of Peter records a talking dog.  Why not accept that?  Why not accept the millions of accounts of alien abductions?  It was claimed that Charles Manson levitated a bus over a ravine; why not accept that?  Why not accept the accounts of visitations by the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Eucharistic miracles?

(July 20, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 1:32 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Perhaps I am just simple, but if you see a pink elephant, and others confirm it (especially without you saying); and you need a scientist to tell if there is a pink elephant there or not, then I think you are a bit misguided.  Observance is all that is really needed, no special equipment or training is required. If I am told that there is a pink elephant messing up the equipment, and they need me to bring my meters is scopes to confirm it, I am going to think that is crazier than the claim that there is a pink elephant in the machine (and likely not going to take my equipment to verify).  Now if you have a reason to determine, that what everyone is seeing is definitely an elephant, and not something that just looks like, one, then for that you may need to investigate further. 

Now if I am seeing a pink elephant following me around, then I may ask others if they see something.  I may not even tell them what I'm seeing (because my friends would say yes, just to mess with ya).  Now, if I am the only one who see's it, then it is subjective and it's reasonable to ask why.  And a psychological answer very well be the correct conclusion.  If others are seeing the same things that I am, then it is objective.

As to your final point, that only certain people can see.  I think I'm going to ask the question if certain people can see, and describe the same thing, or if a number of people are saying that only they can see it (not seeing what the others are claiming they see but each individual).  This is interesting, but I think that if a number of people can see and give a similar independent description of what is going on, then it is objective and may need to be explained why some people cannot see it.   If it is all individual, then I think it gets more difficult, but again a psychological explanation may be best for it's subjectiveness.  It seems that there is another alternative, That people see, but there is no one to substantiate the claim at the time.  Or a number of people have similar reports, but they are not witnessed by others, because no one else was there.  This doesn't necessarily mean that it was subjective or objective.  I may look at the reports, and see if they are describing something similar.  I may examine something like where the reports come from (how isolated the phenomenon is)  Is there things that give the reports credibility.  But often I will hold them in some kind of tension (perhaps leaning to one direction or the other), but not really taking a position either way.

I also do not think that if a number of people corroborate a claim, but that in question is no longer available, that you can call it unsubstatiable.  This is normal in life and history.

"Come one, come all..."  The Acts of Peter records a talking dog.  Why not accept that?  Why not accept the millions of accounts of alien abductions?  It was claimed that Charles Manson levitated a bus over a ravine; why not accept that?  Why not accept the accounts of visitations by the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Eucharistic miracles?

Do you have a specific objection to something I had said or a certain principle, that you wish to express?